Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tuesday October 03, 2006 @06:43AM
from the come-a-long-way dept.

CCFreak2K writes "Slackware 11 has been officially released, just over a year after Slackware 10.2 became available. Software available with Slackware 11 includes KDE 3.5, Mozilla Seamonkey 1.0.5 and X11R6 6.9. As usual, ISOs are available through BitTorrent and FTPs, packages can be synced through FTPs, and you can always buy a copy."

Anyone know why they stuck with making 2.4 series kernel default over 2.6?

It's more stable, and uses less memory. Slackware however has been 2.6 ready since 9.1. Now they provide not one but two 2.6 kernels, one 2.6.17.x in/extra and one bleeding-edge 2.6.18 kernel in/testing, if that's what you prefer. (I wish however that Slackware still came on four disks (with two installation ones) rather than 6, I guess that'd be impossible if it provided less kernels. 8-) Of course, a lot of people complained when it went past one installation disk, thanks to KDE and (then-included) GNOME getting more bloated.)

I have heard that 2.4 kernel is better for older computer systems while 2.6 is better for the new systems. Thus, it might be that Slackware folks decided that their distribution was installed on more older computer systems than on newer ones. I, for one, am definitely glad they stuck with the 2.4 kernel because I have a really old system (100MHz cpu) and I have Slackware installed on it and use it as a file-server. This means I can upgrade to Slackware 11.0 without worrying about the effects of 2.6 kerne

What's with these rumors that the 2.6 kernel is a memory hog? I'm not seeing it. About 2 months ago, I put Slackware 10.2 on a 166 MHz Pentium (no MXX) with 48M of ram and a 1G hard drive. Made a 75M swap partition. I compiled a kernel from vanilla 2.6.16.4 source. And, for the heck of it, I made the root file system Reiser4. (The Reiser4 patch for that kernel version is now labelled as "don't use", sigh.) And you know what? Running XWindows, with a lightweight window manager (jwm, used in Puppy Li

Anyone know why they stuck with making 2.4 series kernel default over 2.6?

I'd guess because there's no 2.7 branch - 2.6 is open to a lot of experimentation. If I'm looking for stability 2.6 isn't it... It might be functionally stable but as far as dev goes it could be broken at any time.

That said, I install a 2.6 kernel on all my Slack boxes (Which is not a subset of all my boxes now that I think about it...)

Here's Pat's view on the issue:
From the ChangeLog.txt from Fri Jul 14 18:31:20 CDT 2006
"I'm probably going to leave the bare.i 2.4.32 kernel as the default kernel (or perhaps sata.i?) as it has very good performance and probably better security due to the simpler and longer-tested design."

Congratulations, and kudos to Pat Volkerding. Many distributions have tried to convert me away from Slack in the past decade: none managed. Debian got close at some point, but with slapt-get in place Slackware's package management has become much easier (updated my laptop from 10.2 to -current with ease). Vanilla rocks.

So let's say I'm a relative newbie to Linux, and I've just finished installing Ubuntu 6.06.1 LTS Dapper Drake on my laptop. I've read through the forums and have apt-gotten my way to a nice-looking Gnome or KDE desktop with 3D accelerated drivers for X, a bunch of useful apps and some games.

What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

Let's say I've been using Linux for years, and I'm a compulsive downloader and installer. I like trying out different OS's and desktop environments, everything from FreeDOS to CentOS to OpenBSD. I'm familiar enough with different package systems and administration styles to figure out how stuff works, but I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on something tedious and unrewarding.

What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

Sorry - I'm not uninformed, having run Gentoo for better than 3 years (not sure why I keep beating my head against *that* wall) and Slackware for over 12. Gentoo doesn't teach you "more" of anything, except perhaps how to appreciate the stability and QA process Pat provides for Slackware.Slackware doesn't have some automated wrapper that downloads and builds all of the unstable software you could want - you learn to do that on your own. It doesn't have a wrapper that takes care of updating config files -

While I agree that you learn many things playing with Gentoo, I don't think the skillset necessarily translates to other distributions... which was kinda my point. Besides if you think compiler optimizations (often redundant) and learning to build things from source (always useful) are worthwhile things to learn, people would be better off reading/building LFS than just running automated Gentoo scripts.

I really question the need for this. I got into slack last year and ran it for a little while. Yes, I learnt some stuff and I'm quite fond of it for that reason, but, with all honesty, after a while I just felt that any deeper learning than that was unwise. I'd rather let an easy installer like ubuntu deal with the installation issues and a package manager like apt-get deal with all software management while I learn, instead of all the low stuff and tedious detail of system management, perhaps something hig

What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

a more hands-on approach to the unix operating system. slackware isn't flashy, isn't what some would even call 'refined' but it is a stable, well-balanced hands-on distro. it's a little more 'primitive' in some things like package management (*whine* dependencies *whine*) but this also works in your favor when repairing a system (reliance only on tar if absolutely necessary). This is only one thought i came up with right quick..

What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

rock-solid stable. if you stick with distro-only packages, you can expect to have practically no problems with it. that's part of the reason the package versions are older; they're tested. pat doesn't go latest-n-greatest unless a large demand exists or a security vuln is found. fwiw, i had a slack3 mailserver at my 1st job acting as corporate email router/gateway for our entire company (~150 ppl). except for the kernel and sendmail itself*, the system was vanilla slack. ran like a top.

i've tried a number of distros for short periods (longest non-slack dabbling was gentoo).. but i keep drifting back to it. i'm also a unix admin by day, if that matters. for me, slack is just plain and simple the easiest distro i've dealt with.

-r

* only reason i went more current with sendmail was this being the time ~sendmail8 started adding antispam bits and it was overall easier than going back and trying to hack the stuff in v7.. and i always love dabbling with the -current kernel, whatever it is.

I'm just curious, but what made you leave Gentoo?I have used it for years and everytime I try another distribution they all just annoy me too much.

The only time I ever considered Slackware I took one look at the docs, read the bit about 2.4 kernel and threw the disk in the bin. I think that was Slackware 9.?? but everyone else was just releasing the first 2.6 kernels even then.Why do they still go 2.4 by default now?

The only time I ever considered Slackware I took one look at the docs, read the bit about 2.4 kernel and threw the disk in the bin. I think that was Slackware 9.?? but everyone else was just releasing the first 2.6 kernels even then.Why do they still go 2.4 by default now?

Well, you could always just compile your own Kernel. Takes maybe an hour all told.

Or, even better, you can actually RTFM and see that you can easily select a 2.6 kernel during install, but I prefer compiling my own.

I've had no problems whatsoever getting sound, SATA, USB, network, WiFi, Bluetooth working on my Dell Inspirion 6400 (six months old) on my Slackware 10.2. I upgraded to Linux 2.6, followed some clear kernel instructions for my Intel card and moved to -current because it was nearing release anyway and I already happily used -current on another system.

I'm the same way, except with Mandriva. I've been using Mandriva since Version 7 (which came out in 2000, back when it was Mandrake). I find that all the other distros annoy me too much. With Gentoo it's the installation process. I know you just have to read through the installation docs, but it's 2006, and I don't feel like printing out the docs, and they're too hard to memorize. No other distro I've seen requires you to follow website instructions to install it. With other distros it's other stuff.

not really sure i really gel'd with gentoo. it never made it to my primary pc; i played with it a bunch on a secondary box. i did kinda like emerge, i liked the custom-compile twiddle-your-own-settings-to-the-nth-degree thing.. but ultimately i just liked the balance of simplicity/hands-on stuff of slackware. that, and my secondary box (lowly pII-based celery466) had a mild coronary when i asked it to build kde. it was fun to watch the smoke curl out of the c

Tried Ubuntu?I was a long time Gentoo user, but I made the switch. Ubuntu's defaults are, almost without exception, the exact settings that I would have chosen for my own, custom distro. They've got the desktop set up the way that I'd have liked to have had it in Gentoo, but I never had the time to get it just right (despite hours of tinkering and RingTFM).

The handful of things that I don't like take a few minutes to fix after a fresh installation (mostly the ass-tastic color scheme).

I can't speak for wifi, but sata works just fine, at least with 2.6 (I haven't tested the 2.4 beyond having to use it for the install). It worked out of the box, but I had to recompile the kernel anyway (no HIMEM-enabled kernel comes with it.:()

Sound cards are still the various iteration of the Audigy 2s, more or less (if someone can recommend an alternative that has decent linux drivers, please do. Creative drives me nuts, but the buzz on the

it's a little more 'primitive' in some things like package management (*whine* dependencies *whine*)

This also makes admins lazy. I know of one admin that found package management in Slackware a hassle, so he installed basically everything. He avoided installing packages later, however, all that software that can contain vulnerabilities makes a box less secure and less targeted for a single purpose.

One thing that I always loved about Slackware (I sadly have switched to Gentoo now but used Slackware for years before I switched) was specficially the lack of a lot of customizations (and the lack of a clear package system). I never was one for grabbing distro-specific packages (or waiting for them); as soon as the source was available for a new app I wanted to install it:). Slackware's barebones nature made that very easy to do without having to worry about breaking the package management system or rep

I concur here. It is not easy, but hell, if you want easy there is OS X and Windows. Using Slackware, customizing and tweaking it, you will learn, because, well, you HAVE to. However, it also allows you unparalelled customization without locking you into a specific format package manger. And if you cannot get a package to install, you can always just Use the Source.

It is funny, Using slackware, I always wondered what the big deal was with Gentoo users compiling thier own programs and such, until I tried Ubuntu one day and tried to compile something...

What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

The thing is (as far as I know) with Ubuntu (and many other distributions), you can use Linux just like you can use Windows: without knowing much, and without having to learn how to use a command line. It's nice, smooth, and not too hard. But you don't learn that much.

(Please note this is not to criticize Ubuntu, or any other distribution: Ubuntu is a great answer to a tough problem, how to make Linux useful for complete newbies).

With Slackware, you will have to learn. Sure, it will be tough, at first. But what you learn, you will be able to use on any Linux distributions, and on many other UN*Xes. I started with Slackware and I am today managing 10+ Solaris servers, as well as 12+ SuSE server. IMHO, what I learned under Slackware has been invaluable to the job I am doing today. YMMV, of course, but everyone I know who uses Slackware credit it with .

What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

Slackware is interesting for hard-core Linux Geeks because:

You have to learn. See above.

You get to compile tons of stuff, which is also a great learning experience. Plus, you learn how to be independent from one distribution.

Everything is open, everything is readable, everything is understandable. All configuration files and utilities are simple text and shell files. All the software compiled on Slackware, including the kernel, is vanilla: no annoying distribution-specific patches.

Slackware is your distribution, your way. Except you don't have to waste countless hours to compile everything, like you have to do under Gentoo or with LFS. It's usually faster and simpler to install than either of these Linux distributions. Install it, and you have the basis of a rock-solid Linux system, ready to go, and ready to go your way, not the "Debian", the "Red Hat" or the "Mandriva" way. That's a big difference.

Try Slackware, you may find yourself hooked!

And, again: this is not an attack on such-or-such distribution. I love all distributions, but Slackware always had -- and always will -- have a special place in my heart. And on my computers.

Or probably more correctly, most BSD like of the various linux distros. There is very little guessing as to whats where and in general its hard to break. But no its probably not for people who enjoy tracking down why the latest greatest of XYZ has broken or worse, caused other things to screw up. Slack is kinda the Ronco of linux - set it and forget it!

In one sense, slackware is the Heathkit of Linux.Back in the day you could buy plans and parts to build a radio from Heathkit, and by the time you werefinished with it, you would understand some things about modulation, soldering, and debugging circuits.

Today, you can buy a $5 radio from Wal-Mart that works and sounds just as good as the Heathkit radio.

I for one have learned a lot about linux already, and I don't want to be a sysadmin anymore than I have to in my free time. In one sense I can understand JW

Let's say I've been using Linux for years, and I'm a compulsive downloader and installer. I like trying out different OS's and desktop environments, everything from FreeDOS to CentOS to OpenBSD. I'm familiar enough with different package systems and administration styles to figure out how stuff works, but I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on something tedious and unrewarding.

This is me! That being said, I'm no guru. I've collected a lot of older systems through the years and I have two boxes I l

***What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?***

Nothing much except for few small sets of users. For those who want to understand Unix, it offers a straightforward system. For those who can't burn/boot CDROM, it offers a UMSDOS based subset ZIPslack that can be installed via network or even via floppies (lot of them) from MSDOS on a FAT32 drive.

What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

Slackware (and to a lesser extent, Debian and Gentoo) offers you the chance to poke about under the bonnet while the vehicle is in motion.

Other distributions use GUI tools to configure everything. Sometimes these read their settings from the actual configuration files they are supposed to be editing; sometimes they use a separate database and recreate the config files either on boot, or when exiting. In the first case, you run the risk by manually editing a file that you might make it unparseable to t

>What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

A series of valuble lessons learning the necessity of Reading The Fine Manual.

Apart from that, the time spent learning, tweaking and using slackware gives a good experiential base to go to probably any other Unix-akin and not be completely lost; or at least -having been stuck in slackware and figured out how to get unstuck- provides a good learning background which will put them in a better stead than your wannabe 'click

I use Slack because it doesn't surprise me. It doesn't try to "help" me in mysterious ways that sometimes break in extremely mysterious ways. It is sometimes called the most "unix-y" of Linux's. The amount of package management done by Slack is just enough. Go look in/var/log/packages if you have a question about what is on your system or what you need.

In short, Slack is simple and straightforward. It gets out of your way.

As many have already said, Slackware makes you learn. I started using linux on and off about the time Slack 8.0 came out. I read up on all the different distros and this one was said to be stable, straight forward, and probably the hardest to learn. I figured, hmm, lets try.I found that everything I just typed was true, except the hard part. It is so straight forward and on the main slackware site, there is an entire book done in html (which you can buy, I did later on just for reference) on how to go from

After using slackware, Linux begins to make sense, and the skills you gain are applicable to all distros. It was a very good starter distro for me, better than RedHat was, with all its smoke and mirrors to let me get by without learning what I ought to know.That said, I currently tend to use Ubuntu on the desktop and CentOS on the server.

Where I last worked, I planned to install slackware on our first Linux servers, but it turned out that the hardware we bought wasn't well supported, and I tried several dis

I use Slack since 1999, no other distribution of Linuxwowed me like Slack did. Nothing comes close, otherdistributors try to overload their distros with lot'sof slow and bloated administration-services like YAST2and so on. But Slackware just runs, and runs and runs...

I use Slack since 1999, no other distribution of Linux
wowed me like Slack did. Nothing comes close, other
distributors try to overload their distros with lot's
of slow and bloated administration-services like YAST2
and so on. But Slackware just runs, and runs and runs...
If I was going to write a post, it would probably read the same except that I starting using Slackware in 2000. Thanks again Pat. I will be ordering the new set today.

On a related subject, are there any linux distros that come with a built in torrent client? If not, they're so widely used it seems like it'd only be a matter of time before one does crop up. Followed by a suit from the RIAA.

Azureus runs just fine. Opera has it's own built in client. There's a few command line clients. As stated, Gnome has one. So, find one and start seeding! My download rate is climbing ever so slowly. Thanks!

Yep, finally we got Slackware 11, and the list of changes and improvements is impressive.

Just as an aside: Patrick Volkerding is one of the unsung heroes of Open Source. Slackware is after all the oldest Linux distribution still in operation, and it is also one of the most stable and well-managed. And this is quite an achievement, considering it still is a one-man operation, and that Patrick went through some tough times recently, with his health problems and the birth of his cute baby... Hey, I am a dad, too, and I know how tough it is wih a new-born in the house!

So, thanks for everything Patrick! You are "The Man" and Slackware rocks!

And, yes, I am a (very) satisfied Slackware customer. How did you ever guess?:-)

Does Slackware have the same commitment to timely security patches, easy upgrades, and stable version numbers (no breaking configuration files) that Debian does? If not, I'd rather keep running Debian stable on my servers.

Does Slackware have the same commitment to timely security patches, easy upgrades, and stable version numbers (no breaking configuration files) that Debian does?

Check out slackware-10.2/patches/ChangeLog.txt at your favorite mirror for timeliness of recent patch releases. Not exactly sure what you mean by "stable version numbers", but the main ChangeLog.txt files are available going back several releases, which will show the history of every package version number. Package upgrades can be done through sla

I've tried other distros over the years, and have found the package management systems unwieldy, untrustworthy, and no less time-consuming to get things set up like I want than manually building from source and editing config files. I've learned details about system operation and file system layout through working with Slackware that have helped me debug problems on a variety of systems.

I'm a big fan of what I like to call Fire-and-Forget computing. I like to set up a system right the first time, then never have to touch it again (or as little as possible). Slackware has been very good about letting me do exactly that. My firewall/NAT box has been running happily without any unexpected reboots since sometime in 1998. For the most part it was only getting rebooted every time I moved from one dorm room/apartment to the next.

Slackware's also better at running on older hardware than any other distro I've found. I've just tried to get Ubuntu installed on some bare-minimum-specs HP e-PCs, without success, and there didn't appear to be any sort of lowmem option there.

I do miss the base floppy set for installing a minimal working system, done away with somewhere around slack9. I do miss that awesome little booklet that was tucked inside the 4-cd set (the first Linux book I ever read, and the most useful IMHO). I've always disliked the lack of a ftp/wget-based installation option on the stock install disk. And I've never been able to get the slack-build scripts to build new openssl-libs and openssh for me. Those are pretty much the only complaints I've ever had that were slackware-specific.

If you don't like the minimalist attitude of slack, use something else.

Look for the "alternative installer" disk if you give Ubuntu another try on the old hardware. While I generally prefer Slackware on low-end hardware (my Slackware firewall + DNS server was up for better than two years before I decided it needed updating), the newest Ubuntu with the alternative installer works ok on a machine with 64MB RAM. Less than that and you may well still have problems - but I had problems at 64MB RAM with prior releases...:)

I love Slackware, and I keep vacillating between going with Slack or Debian. I currently use slack on my workstation, and debian on the server, because the server is 64-bit and debian has a semi-official 64 bit port that works. The only 64-bit support for slack seems to come from slamd64, which is fine but I have to wonder why the "official" slackware distro is ignoring 64-bit? Is it just because of time, or is slamd64 eventually supposed to be rolled into the official distro?I was veering toward preferring

So this is what I did, installed 32-bit slack. Runs like a charm on 64-bit x86-64. Downloaded kernel source and build a 64-bit kernel. Next you can procede to build a 64-bit toolchain (of course keeping slack's 32-bit libs). Finally you can recompile packages that will benefit as 64-bit.

Can you please write up how you did this? I'd love to know. I'm a bit short on time these days to try to figure out how to do it myself. I've been experimenting with Splack on an old Sun Ultra, and I am developing my own b

I love Slackware. Grew up in Linux with it. Started in 1996. Still using it today as my primary distro.

All my current PCs CPUs now use AMD64 instruction sets. I'm motivated to moving them toward more pure AMD64 software. I've owned Athlon 64 CPUs for three years now, and still no wide and mainstream support for AMD64. All the 64-bit options currently are not as mainstream or as polished or conflict free.

I've been experimenting with the unofficial Slamd64 port with modest success. Fred Emmott is really a great champion and I appreciate greatly all his work. Slamd64 still has plenty of rough edges and may only approach, but perhaps not exceed, the smoothness and polish of the official distribution.

In the meantime, I'm experimenting with Slamd64 but also branching to other distros which claim full AMD64 support (xubuntu, SuSE, Gentoo are my current areas of focus) to guage whether they seem more mainstream and have smoother support.

Readers, why do you think there is no "official" effort to bring Slack to AMD64? Do you think this may change?

I know Patrick has commented previously on this. To turn a blind eye to AMD64 seems to me to shortchange the future of the distro. Slack was founded on i386 and has maintained steadfast focus on that architecture, and though AMD64 isn't so greatly different, i386 won't be with us always. What becomes of Slack then?

I would like to see Fred's fine start folded into a greater official port to lift out of the level of just being a curious project and to get the backing of a larger community.

It's strange how there's an official IBM S390 port but no AMD64. The IBM ports were done by people from IBM. There are also S390 ports of a couple of other distros (RedHat for one, and maybe SuSE?). IBM's marketeers must be in overdrive.

SPARC and Alpha ports have come and gone over the years, but never had the backing of Sun or DEC/Compaq/HP.

Remember, Pat does most of the work himself and without sufficient motication and resources, can't do everything.

I'm glad to see Slackware steadily plodding along in it's development. I hope that Pat continues to produce this distro for years to come as it is a fantasitic distro, one that is too often overlooked.

While I have since moved on to another distro, more or less out of necessity, I'm glad to know that I can always "come home" to Slackware.

theres a kernel headers warning in the 2.6 package. it tells you your going to have mismatched kernel headers from either the kernel, or from glibc. take your pick. what it doesnt tell you about is the convenient build scripts in the source for glibc. carefull to upgradepkg --reinstall, NOT installpkg if you do this.why not just include a set of glibc packages to go with? (to use if your not just testing 2.6)

and, maybe, for the 2.6 kernels, not bother with the seperate alsa driver. the one in the kernel wor

I'm new to the linux world. Just started using it about 4 or 5 months ago. I'm not in the I.T. business. I'm that annoying marketing guy on the phone you guys mention from time to time, but I've been a "closet case" computer geek sense I got my first Apple II. I've known about linux for a long time and I finally had some extra scratch so I decided to pick up an box and experiment with an OS I've been wanting to dive into.

I shopped around for distributions. I used Debian, Ubuntu, and Mandriva. Those all l

Yes, for all 13,000+ packages. If you have a decent network connection you can do a network install with the first CD. The installer sets up a small base system and then can install anything else via FTP, HTTP, or another method.

I personally prefer slapt-get (and use gslapt as a Front-End if I'm feeling gooey!).QTswaret, however, is a very nice FE and almost makes me want to switch to swaret. The thing is, I tend to use the CLI for occassional updates and probably only use an FE 20% of the time. I used to use swaret but am currently more comfortable with slapt-get.

slackpkg is quite useful too for package management.

When I roll my own I use checkinstall (mentioned wrt debian and redhat/fedora in a later post) to create install tarba

I remember Slackware back in the day, apart from updated packages, has it got a decent official package manager yet?

If by decent you mean bloated and riddled with cyclic dependancy verification: then, no it does not.

However, the package management solution that comes with Slackware (and always has) is durable, functional, and flexible. It has versioning information, so you can upgrade by package name. You arent stuck with hunting down un-necessary prerequisites because the author says you need them

It always has had a package manager. pkgtool.
It doesn't do depenedency checking, but that doesn't make it not a package manager, any more than a lack of point and click interface makes vi not a text editor.

Yeah, I was looking for a new linux distro a few months back, and quickly turned away when visiting their front page yielded the most recent news as september 2005. I know they're probably spending all their time coding and therefore have no time to update their website, but I seriously thought they had stopped developing slackware because of the lack of news.

Now, I have never used Slackware; it never came my way when I started using Linux, then I got hooked on Gentoo and don't see a reason to look back.

However, I do find your comment a bit... strange. Inflammatory, even.
It may be because you just didn't bother to provide any kind of proof for your claims.

I have never heard anything but words of praise for Slackware (barring the comments on the still-default 2.4 kernel, which is still a very valid option in Gentoo as well), and now you have nothing but derrog

2 things. 1: Lack of proper package management (want to uninstall that package?). Want those dependencies resolved? Want those packages automaticly updated to get the latest security patches? Tough shit. This is a "hands-on OS" and damned if you'll get any assistance getting work done efficiently.

2: Lack of configuration tools. Want to get things done? Want that thing setup now? Go to your favorite text editor and edit those config files by hand, even though it's utterly brainless work that any decent d

What about slapt-get etc? Sounds like package management to me... one of the posters here stated he'd upgraded from 10.2 to 11 without a glitch.

2: Lack of configuration tools. Want to get things done? Want that thing setup now? Go to your favorite text editor and edit those config files by hand, even though it's utterly brainless work that any decent distro should have automated.

That, really, is a matter of taste.
I like manual configuration; you have to learn where th

I am a devoted slackware user (been checking the Changelog in excess of 3-4 times daily) and you ask why people use slackware?1. speed it might be possible to get slightly better performance with Gentoo or *insert source distro here* however it also doesn't take days to install.2. It will run on just about anything. it is nice when I can run the identical base system on my brand new desktop, all the way down to my 486 based linux firewall.3. A sane design. In slackware you will find everything from a softwa